Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] dmaengine: dw: Introduce max burst length hw config

Serge Semin
2020-05-21T01:47:12Z

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:37:14PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 17-05-20, 22:38, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:09:50PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > On 12-05-20, 22:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 05:08:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 02:41:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 01:53:03PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:

[nip]

> > > > > > But let's see what we can do better. Since maximum is defined on the slave side
> > > > > > device, it probably needs to define minimum as well, otherwise it's possible
> > > > > > that some hardware can't cope underrun bursts.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no need to define minimum if such limit doesn't exists except a
> > > > > natural 1. Moreover it doesn't exist for all DMA controllers seeing noone has
> > > > > added such capability into the generic DMA subsystem so far.
> > > >
> > > > There is a contract between provider and consumer about DMA resource. That's
> > > > why both sides should participate in fulfilling it. Theoretically it may be a
> > > > hardware that doesn't support minimum burst available in DMA by a reason. For
> > > > such we would need minimum to be provided as well.
> > >
> > > Agreed and if required caps should be extended to tell consumer the
> > > minimum values supported.
> >
> > Sorry, it's not required by our hardware. Is there any, which actually has such
> > limitation? (minimum burst length)
>
> IIUC the idea is that you will tell maximum and minimum values supported
> and client can pick the best value. Esp in case of slave transfers
> things like burst, msize are governed by client capability and usage. So
> exposing the set to pick from would make sense

Agreed. I'll add min_burst capability.

-Sergey

>
> --
> ~Vinod